Let's reinvent communism

Time is running out for us. World Suicide III is already underway. The West has killed millions in the last few decades. This is not a good time to lose ourselves in abstruse theoretical debates.

In what follows, I attempt to appeal to intuition and common sense. I admit that my thinking is crude and simplistic, and I apologize in advance to theorists who expect better.

Instead of starting with theory, let's start with practice. Let's look for practical solutions to the problems that beset us. We can draw inspiration from theory, but we need to be guided by what actually works, not by abstract deduction.

The first problem we need to address is the war addiction in the West. What can we do to stop the West from blowing up the planet and eradicating the human race? Is it better to confront the West as a nation, or as a class? The answer, obviously, is the latter.

Pitting nation against nation is how the bankers make their fabulous profits. To confront the West as a nation is to play into the hands of the war profiteers. Thus, the struggle against war needs to be a worldwide movement.

In war, one class profits and other classes suffer -- thus we have a basis for rooting the struggle against war in class awareness.

When society is ruled by the top 0.01% -- the class that profits from war -- we would expect war to be likely. When society is ruled by the bottom 99.9% -- the class that suffers from war -- we would expect war to be less likely. So the struggle against war is a class struggle -- a struggle to depose the plutocrats and put power in the hands of the bottom 99.9%.

The political power of the plutocrats comes from their economic power: They have a stranglehold on society because they own the means of production. Thus, we come to see a need for the means of production to be put under public ownership.

Public ownership of the means of production may not be communism in the strictest sense, but it's close enough to satisfy me for now. Survival is the first priority. That is what we should struggle for. This is not the time for refinement.

The Immortal Science of Marxism-Leninism is sufficient.

But some points:
1. We're not really trapped in theory. Praxis is going on all over the world. The ICM is growing everywhere faster than it has in decades.
2. Marxists have always valued good praxis over theoretical discourse. That is a big part of our existing ethos.
3. This "addiction to war" has already been exposed for almost 100 years as Imperialism, aka the highest stage of capitalism. Through this system the advanced economies loot the global south to boost their own economies. Without this destabilization and warfare advanced capitalism could not persist.
4. Oppressed nationalism is an important part of the anti-capitalist struggle.
5. We all profit from imperialism in imperialist nations. Hence its continued support.
6. The only way to get public ownership of the MoP is to directly seize them. We cannot vote ourselves into control of these things.

Quote:

The West has killed millions in the last few decades.

Has it actually though? I keep seeing people throw these uncited figures out but don't know where they are supposed to have come from. Who were all these millions?

Quote:

The first problem we need to address is the war addiction in the West.

I disagree. The West, contrary to popular belief does not wage that much war. Not compared with how common wars were in previous centuries. The West is not getting bogged down in endless wars; it engages in a few air strikes here and there.

Quote:

What can we do to stop the West from blowing up the planet and eradicating the human race? Is it better to confront the West as a nation, or as a class? The answer, obviously, is the latter.

The West isn't going to blow up the planet. Why would it do that? How does a few air strikes in the Middle East lead to blowing up the planet? And how on earth does 'The West' constitute a class?

Quote:

Pitting nation against nation is how the bankers make their fabulous profits.

Lol, no it isn't.

Quote:

To confront the West as a nation is to play into the hands of the war profiteers. Thus, the struggle against war needs to be a worldwide movement.

You just said we should confront the West as a class. Now you are saying confront it as a nation (both wrong IMO). Anti-war is great but I don't see how it brings about communism.

Quote:

In war, one class profits and other classes suffer -- thus we have a basis for rooting the struggle against war in class awareness.

This is what happens in capitalism in general, war or not.

Quote:

When society is ruled by the top 0.01% -- the class that profits from war -- we would expect war to be likely. When society is ruled by the bottom 99.9% -- the class that suffers from war -- we would expect war to be less likely. So the struggle against war is a class struggle -- a struggle to depose the plutocrats and put power in the hands of the bottom 99.9%.

Just being anti-war doesn't make you a Marxist. Capitalists are perfectly capable of making profit without resorting to war. Even without war the arms industry can make huge profits because countries need to maintain readiness for war.


@Dagoth

Quote:

The Immortal Science of Marxism-Leninism is sufficient.

History would suggest otherwise.

Quote:

Without this destabilization and warfare advanced capitalism could not persist.

Why not? Capitalism in Europe and America cannot exist unless they periodically drop a few bombs on reactionary Islamists in the Middle East?

Quote:

Oppressed nationalism is an important part of the anti-capitalist struggle.

How many "oppressed nations" are left in the world? Most countries are independent of former colonial powers and, other than Palestine, which the left loves to bleat on about, it's not like the large colonial empires that existed in Lenin's time still exist. What the MLs seem to ignore is that making small nations "independent" of global capital just means lumbering them with their own bourgeoisie instead of a foreign bourgeoisie. Thus the subjugated workers in the "oppressed" countries are still subjugated workers once their country is free of "oppression".

Quote:

We all profit from imperialism in imperialist nations. Hence its continued support.

So where is the solution to be found? How can you expect imperialism to be overthrown if it makes perfect sense for people in the West to support it?

gRed Britain wrote:

Has it actually though? I keep seeing people throw these uncited figures out but don't know where they are supposed to have come from. Who were all these millions?

Over a million dead in Iraq. At least hundreds of thousands more from Syria to Libya to Afghanistan. And how about the continued terrorism against Colombian socialists? Leave it to ol GRed to try to diminish the crimes of imperialism. Once again.

gRed Britain wrote:

Why not? Capitalism in Europe and America cannot exist unless they periodically drop a few bombs on reactionary Islamists in the Middle East?

Periodically drop a few bombs? Y'know GRed you are a real price of shit.

Well whatever. Yes the west requires this constant bombing because without resource extraction from the global south the west could not afford the lifestyles of its inhabitants. And nobody is just gonna accept a massive drop in living standards when they have already been getting the payoff.

gRed Britain wrote:

How many "oppressed nations" are left in the world? Most countries are independent of former colonial powers and, other than Palestine, which the left loves to bleat on about, it's not like the large colonial empires that existed in Lenin's time still exist. What the MLs seem to ignore is that making small nations "independent" of global capital just means lumbering them with their own bourgeoisie instead of a foreign bourgeoisie. Thus the subjugated workers in the "oppressed" countries are still subjugated workers once their country is free of "oppression".

Yeah so? Imperial capital strangles self-determination. Which makes oppression far worse as the people lack any agency to actually change their homelands and end oppression. The victory of national liberation isn't the end, it is the first step towards local socialism from the ground up.

I'd say something snarky about you not seeming to understand basic shit like this but you are an imperialist shill always.

gRed Britain wrote:

So where is the solution to be found? How can you expect imperialism to be overthrown if it makes perfect sense for people in the West to support it?

Because I support NatLib. They free themselves from our tentacles and imperialism cannot function. The west will then be forced to choose between socialism and attempting to militarily retaking the world. After all the war caused by the NatLib struggles I think the latter will be a politically untenable concept.

gRed's post is disgraceful.

RedGeek wrote:

This is just a peliminary list I've put together of the number of people killed from Wars/massacres directly a result of the Imperialist Agressions of the United States government. This list doesn't claim to be comprehensive or even anywhere close to the actual number (I've used conservative figures) it's meant as a starting point.

Unneccesary Nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (1945)
200,000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki

US backed right-wingers in the Greek Civil War (1946-1949)
158,000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_Civil_War

US intervention in the Korean Civil War (1950-1953)
2.8 million
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_civil_war

Guatemalan Civil War caused by a US backed dictator (1960-1996)
200,000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guatemalan_Civil_War

US intevention in the Vietnamese Civil War (1965-1973)
4 million
http://www.statisticbrain.com/vietnam-war-statistics/

US backed Indonesian government's killings of communists
500,000-1 million
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesian ... E2%80%9366

US supported Islamic Terrorists (including the Taliban and Al Queda) against a Secular Marxist government and the subsequent Afghanistan Civil War followed by the US invasion of their former allies the Taliban (1978-Present)
2 million
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan_War_(1978-92)

Iraq Sanctions (1990-2003)
500,000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_against_Iraq

Iraq War (2003-2011)
1 million
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War

US supporting Islamic and secular rebels in the Libyan War (2011)
100,000
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/libya-conflict ... ned-237895

US supported Al Qaeda Islamic terrorists in the Syrian War (2011-Present)
200,000
http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/1.540747

Quote:

Over a million dead in Iraq. At least hundreds of thousands more from Syria to Libya to Afghanistan. And how about the continued terrorism against Colombian socialists? Leave it to ol GRed to try to diminish the crimes of imperialism. Once again.

Most of these were done by people on these countries, not the West themselves. Why do you seem to think that every death in every war in the world is somehow the fault of America or Europe? Assad killing all those people is the West's fault? al Qaeda and ISIS blowing up Iraqi and Syrian civilians is the West's fault? You are following the typical M-L notion that people in the developing world have absolutely no agency or capacity for blame. All the rebels in Africa and the Middle East who commit horrific crimes against their own people are somehow all the fault of America.

And it's not about 'diminishing the crimes of imperialism', it's about not being slavishly tied to a flawed Leninist theory from 1917.

Quote:

Periodically drop a few bombs? Y'know GRed you are a real price of shit.

Ok Iraq and Afghanistan involved troops, but compared to the amount of ground troop deployments in the 19th century and before, direct nation-state vs nation-state wars are diminishing. It's now mainly airstrikes.

Quote:

Well whatever. Yes the west requires this constant bombing because without resource extraction from the global south the west could not afford the lifestyles of its inhabitants.

How the hell does this work? Resources from these countries are acquired by trade deals, not bombing. Bombing actually disrupts trade and resource acquisition.

Quote:

And nobody is just gonna accept a massive drop in living standards when they have already been getting the payoff.

Which is why most people in the West are going to naturally support imperialism.

Quote:

Yeah so? Imperial capital strangles self-determination. Which makes oppression far worse as the people lack any agency to actually change their homelands and end oppression. The victory of national liberation isn't the end, it is the first step towards local socialism from the ground up.

Capital is capital. It oppresses people in both imperialist countries and countries under their influence. But the idea that the oppressed countries would be better off purely because imperial capital was somehow absent from their countries is laughable. Would China be better off without all the Western capital investment? I know you'll probably say that China isn't a victim of imperialism but its government has essentially whored out its cheap labour force onto the world market. Look at the suffering that's gone on in Foxxconn factories and in the coal mines. And yet, despite all this, living standards in China have improved since it put its labour force on the world market.

Similar to the awful mining conditions in African countries which are owned by Western capital. Are they horrible places where people work in bad conditions for very little pay? Absolutely. But if these mines were to suddenly vanish then that's plenty of jobs (and therefore wages) that suddenly disappear from the economy.

Quote:

Because I support NatLib. They free themselves from our tentacles and imperialism cannot function.

The National Library of New Zealand? Because that's what came up when I Googled your obscure group. Tell me how exactly they 'free themselves from our tentacles and imperialism cannot function'.

Quote:

The west will then be forced to choose between socialism and attempting to militarily retaking the world. After all the war caused by the NatLib struggles I think the latter will be a politically untenable concept.

Nope, capitalism needs to be allowed to run its full course in development across the world in order for the conditions for a truly global proletarian revolution to occur. This may well take another 100 years or more and there is nothing anyone can do to force the hand of history (like the Bolsheviks essentially tried, ultimately with state capitalist results).

You see, Dagoth, I am not a supporter of imperialism, I simply realise that we cannot hope for a socialist revolution in the West because no-one can answer the following question: If imperialism is beneficial to the vast majority of workers in the West, how and why are they supposed to overthrow it? The answer is they can't/won't. Instead we have to wait for imperialism to run itself into the ground which we might be starting to see now. Imperialist investment abroad has made the "global south" increasingly competitive as sources of manufacturing. As such we are seeing wages and living standards starting to decline in the West (exacerbated by the crash of 2008) and inequality beginning to entrench itself. The middle class, capitalism's saviour in the West, is under threat. Things have to get worse before they get better.




@Yeqon:

Two things. First, I've added up the total of the atrocities you've cited and they come to 12,158,000 over 72 years. Obviously horrific but I don't see how you can get so worked up about this when the famine in China under Mao resulted in the deaths of between 20-40,000,000 people between 1958-62. And everyone except the most deluded people will see that the vast majority of these were caused by government mismanagement of the economy. But presumably they don't count in your eyes because they don't fit your narrative that only the US and Europe are responsible for the world's suffering?

Second, you are falling into the same trap of Dagoth whereby you let local people off the hook for the responsibility of the deaths they caused. US-backed groups in civil wars. So it wasn't the fault of those local people who actually did the killing? Is every war and atrocity somehow the fault of the US? Presumably you give capitalist Russia a free pass when it bombs Syria just like all the other hypocritical anti-war lot on the West do.

gRed Britain wrote:

Why do you seem to think that every death in every war in the world is somehow the fault of America or Europe?

Not every war, only the ones that the West has been involved in since WWII, which is a fuскload.

gRed Britain wrote:

al Qaeda and ISIS blowing up Iraqi and Syrian civilians is the West's fault?

The west invented al-Qaeda to kill Soviet soldiers, and then gave them ground to breed by invading Iraq and deposing Saddam, so fuск yeah it's their fault.

gRed Britain wrote:

You are following the typical M-L notion that people in the developing world have absolutely no agency or capacity for blame.

They most certainly do have the capacity for blame and are to blame for many crimes, but that doesn't make the West innocent neither.

Quote:

It's now mainly airstrikes.

By what standard of morality can it be said that airstrikes are better than sending ground troops?

gRed Britain wrote:

How the hell does this work? Resources from these countries are acquired by trade deals, not bombing.

True they use trade deals, but they also use the military to counter threats to their economic leadership, be it through intimidation or through outright war. It's when deals are not slanted in their favor do they send in the big guns.

Quote:

Bombing actually disrupts trade and resource acquisition.

Sure it does, but for your competitors. The military can also be used indirectly to strategically encircle your competitors, just like America has been trying to do with Iran by moving their troops into Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. It's amazing how all of these basic capitalist and imperialist tactics seem foreign to you.

gRed Britain wrote:

Two things. First, I've added up the total of the atrocities you've cited and they come to 12,158,000 over 72 years. Obviously horrific but I don't see how you can get so worked up about this when the famine in China under Mao resulted in the deaths of between 20-40,000,000 people between 1958-62. And everyone except the most deluded people will see that the vast majority of these were caused by government mismanagement of the economy. But presumably they don't count in your eyes because they don't fit your narrative that only the US and Europe are responsible for the world's suffering?

Where did you ever see me bring up Chairman Mao? Not even China's Communist Party has denied the wrongdoings of the Chairman. How does China's history relate to the crimes perpetrated by the West today in my lifetime? You're the one who seems to think that two wrongs make it right or something.

gRed Britain wrote:

Second, you are falling into the same trap of Dagoth whereby you let local people off the hook for the responsibility of the deaths they caused. US-backed groups in civil wars. So it wasn't the fault of those local people who actually did the killing?

Yeah, I'd like to see America 'surgically airstrike' all of Britain's public institutions out of existence and see what happens.

Quote:

Is every war and atrocity somehow the fault of the US?

Obviously not. You're the one who keeps bringing up this idiotic sentiment when no one here has ever said that all of the world's woes are somehow the West's fault.

gRed Britain wrote:

Presumably you give capitalist Russia a free pass when it bombs Syria just like all the other hypocritical anti-war lot on the West do.

Yeah, by your logic we should start assuming that bombing and invading Nazi Germany was a crime against humanity whose sole responsibility lies with that of the Soviet Union.

Quote:

Not every war, only the ones that the West has been involved in since WWII, which is a fuскload.

There have been plenty of wars all over the world that don't involve the West. China's wars with India and Vietnam, India's wars with Pakistan, Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia, Soviet intervention in Afghanistan, civil wars all over the non-Western world, etc, etc.

Quote:

The west invented al-Qaeda to kill Soviet soldiers, and then gave them ground to breed by invading Iraq and deposing Saddam, so fuск yeah it's their fault.

I don't deny the US helped bring about their existence as part of anti-Soviet activities in Afghanistan, but this doesn't mean that all terror attacks committed across the world by al-Qaeda or their affiliates are the West's fault. Unless you are implying that the US government actually wanted the 9/11 attacks to happen?

Quote:

They most certainly do have the capacity for blame and are to blame for many crimes, but that doesn't make the West innocent neither.

No-one is saying the West is innocent, just that it should not be held solely responsible for all the wars and suffering occurring on the planet.

Quote:

By what standard of morality can it be said that airstrikes are better than sending ground troops?

While civilians certainly have been killed, air strikes tend to hit military targets rather than civilians, unlike Hamas whose method of resistance tends to involve firing rockets indiscriminately at civilian areas in Israel. This is not to say that Israel does not respond with totally disproportionate responses and has done some awful things to the Palestinians. But let's not kid ourselves and assume the Palestinians are a noble and blameless bunch. I fail to see how firing rockets at schools constitutes "resistance".

Quote:

True they use trade deals, but they also use the military to counter threats to their economic leadership, be it through intimidation or through outright war. It's when deals are not slanted in their favor do they send in the big guns.

So if going to war is how the West has got rich, how do you explain why Switzerland is so wealthy, considering the last time it invaded someone was 1815 and that was France? Also, there is a huge amount of imperialist aggression that is targeted at the Palestinians but they are not a chief source of economic exploitation. No-one is rich because they cash in on cheap Palestinian labour. There is no valuable commodity sitting under Palestinian land such as oil or gas.

Don't you see? The countries that are rich aren't always the ones that invade other countries, and the countries that suffer invasion and aggression aren't always the ones that are economically wealthy.

Quote:

Sure it does, but for your competitors.

No, it disrupts it for everyone. Blowing up an oil field doesn't make that oil field magically keep producing for America but no-one else.

Quote:

The military can also be used indirectly to strategically encircle your competitors, just like America has been trying to do with Iran by moving their troops into Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. It's amazing how all of these basic capitalist and imperialist tactics seem foreign to you.

So how come this has not resulted in Iran capitulating to American demands? How does America get rich out of putting this sort of pressure on Iran?

Quote:

Where did you ever see me bring up Chairman Mao? Not even China's Communist Party has denied the wrongdoings of the Chairman. How does China's history relate to the crimes perpetrated by the West today in my lifetime? You're the one who seems to think that two wrongs make it right or something.

You didn't bring up Mao; that's the whole point. I'm pointing out that you list all these great crimes of imperialism over 72 years and yet communist China managed to inflict far more casualties over just 4 years. Thus I was pointing out your hypocrisy. You should be denouncing the CCP before you denounce imperialism, considering the death toll is much higher.

Quote:

Yeah, I'd like to see America 'surgically airstrike' all of Britain's public institutions out of existence and see what happens.

How is this relevant to what I said?

Quote:

Obviously not. You're the one who keeps bringing up this idiotic sentiment when no one here has ever said that all of the world's woes are somehow the West's fault.

That's because you and the other M-Ls never blame anyone but America, European countries or Israel for any wars or atrocities occurring in the world. Even one's that don't directly involve them you still blame for influencing the perpetrators.

But since you are denying this, why don't you list some countries and groups who have committed atrocities who aren't America, Europe or Israel?

Quote:

Yeah, by your logic we should start assuming that bombing and invading Nazi Germany was a crime against humanity whose sole responsibility lies with that of the Soviet Union.

This makes no sense and is evading my original point that people like you never criticise Russia when it does what the West does.

gRed Britain wrote:

There have been plenty of wars all over the world that don't involve the West. China's wars with India and Vietnam, India's wars with Pakistan, Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia, Soviet intervention in Afghanistan, civil wars all over the non-Western world, etc, etc.

Obviously. Imperialism is not the sole cause of war.

gRed Britain wrote:

While civilians certainly have been killed, air strikes tend to hit military targets rather than civilians, unlike Hamas whose method of resistance tends to involve firing rockets indiscriminately at civilian areas in Israel. This is not to say that Israel does not respond with totally disproportionate responses and has done some awful things to the Palestinians. But let's not kid ourselves and assume the Palestinians are a noble and blameless bunch. I fail to see how firing rockets at schools constitutes "resistance".

First you bring up China out of the blue, now Hamas. It's impossible to debate with you. Fuск Hamas and fuск the Israeli government. They deserve each other what with their fanatically right-wing religious ideologies. It's the non-Hamas affiliated civilians of Gaza that I stand in solidarity with.

gRed Britain wrote:

So if going to war is how the West has got rich, how do you explain why Switzerland is so wealthy, considering the last time it invaded someone was 1815 and that was France?

Switzerland has gotten rich off the spoils of its imperialist neighbors, and that includes Nazi Germany. It lies smack right in the middle of history's European superpowers and has provided a safe haven for Europe's capitalists to hide their money. The country in and of itself is not imperialist, but has benefitted majorly from imperialism due to circumstance. Its capitalist economy works as part of a greater European capitalist framework.

Quote:

Also, there is a huge amount of imperialist aggression that is targeted at the Palestinians but they are not a chief source of economic exploitation. No-one is rich because they cash in on cheap Palestinian labour. There is no valuable commodity sitting under Palestinian land such as oil or gas.

It's not the Palestinians that America is profiting from, but from the Israelis. By appeasing the Israelis they profit back home due to the immense power and wealth Israeli-Jewish lobbies possess. Israel is also an American strategic ally in one of the most oil-rich regions on Earth. Maintaining strategic partners all over the world is important if you want to gain the upper hand against your competitors. It gives you access to pipelines, trade routes, sea ports et cetera, all of which benefit capitalist and imperialist superpowers.

Quote:

Don't you see? The countries that are rich aren't always the ones that invade other countries, and the countries that suffer invasion and aggression aren't always the ones that are economically wealthy.

Obviously. You have a penchant for stating the obvious.

gRed Britain wrote:

No, it disrupts it for everyone. Blowing up an oil field doesn't make that oil field magically keep producing for America but no-one else.

Actually, when you blow up the oil fields of your competitors, you kill your competition. When you set the rivalling restaurant across the street on fire, you kill your competition. It's one of many imperialist tactics.

In another scenario, when a country like Iraq refuses to give in to western capitalist demands, the west invades that country, destroys all of its public institutions, moves in its corporations and takes the oil.

gRed Britain wrote:

So how come this has not resulted in Iran capitulating to American demands?

Imperialist tactics don't always work. They've failed many times. Iran is resolute and very strong both militarily and economically. By this point Americans have probably realised that fighting Iran as a competitor for dominance of the middle-eastern trade routes would cost more than actually trying to negotiate with them on more equitable terms.

Quote:

How does America get rich out of putting this sort of pressure on Iran?

You help your puppet allies (Saudi Arabia) gain the upper hand by controlling the major oil trade routes (pipe-lines) through the middle east by encircling your common foe and competitor, Iran. By encircling them, you make it difficult for them to export their products and steal away potential clients.

The problem here is that you don't even seem to analyze these situations through a Marxist lens.

gRed Britain wrote:

You should be denouncing the CCP before you denounce imperialism, considering the death toll is much higher.

I do denounce the Communist Party of China, and for a lot of things actually, one of many being their support for the Khmer Rouge.

Quote:

How is this relevant to what I said?

I'll rephrase. You absolve the west of blame for what is happening in the middle east right now because they are not physically doing most of the killing, which is why I said I'd like to see a foreign superpower dismantle all of the institutions imperative to holding an entire country together in say a country like England, watch the chaos that would ensue and see who you would blame then.

gRed Britain wrote:

That's because you and the other M-Ls never blame anyone but America, European countries or Israel for any wars or atrocities occurring in the world. Even one's that don't directly involve them you still blame for influencing the perpetrators.

I'd suggest you actually start quoting me rather than presume that you know me.

Would you like me to quote a few of my posts where I denounce the actions of my own non-western third world countries? Here you go:

Yeqon wrote:

Many a war crime has Saddam committed not only on Kurds but on Iranians as well.

Yeqon wrote:

Unfortunately, some of the ugliest and most opportunistic people to have ever lived were Syrians with positions of significant influence within the Ba'ath party.

...the regime is reaping many mistakes they had sown over the decades; mistakes not only committed within Syria but all over the Levant as well.

Yeqon wrote:

As for the talk about the west fomenting strife in the Middle East, I'd just like to say that the locals are also partly to blame for their internal divisions and constantly allowing themselves to be played for suckers by the white man. For example in Lebanon as an April fools joke, the parliament convened pretending to actually agree on something.

Yeqon wrote:

Nobody here has ever denied the countless injustices that have taken place within the Islamic world.

I am not one of those who blames all of the Middle Eastern woes on the west exclusively; I should know, I've lived 10+ years in the Middle East and have interests there even now and I can attest to the narrow-mindedness, shortsightedness and corruption on many levels.

Going even further than that, would you like to see me quote myself whereby I actually defend and express admiration for some of the western nations being discussed? Here you go:

Quote:

...as I've stated previously on this site, I'm fully aware of the accomplishments owed to western countries that have been nothing less than vitally beneficial to the sustainability and progress of the human race to which I, a third worlder, have many a time reaped and enjoyed the benefits.

Yeqon wrote:

I am not blind neither am I ungrateful for all the advances in medicine that the United States has been able to achieve within the past century, not to mention all the other technological advances to which I myself who lives in the third world am able to enjoy and benefit from. I myself was educated in American institutions after all.

Quote:

London is, well London after all; a city of immense beauty and culture, to which I'd imagine would cater to my tastes quite well.

Yeqon wrote:

1/5 of every single migrant in the world today resides within the USA. America houses more migrants than all the following top five countries with the highest immigrant populations combined. There are more migrants in America than there are people in Ukraine, the largest country in Europe.

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

I don't know of any other country that has such welcoming words at its doorstep.

Here's a story I witnessed first hand on the subject. When I lived in Kiev I was locally known as the person to go to if you needed help filling out English language documents of any kind. Being only one of two people in my university who was fluent in English, Arabic and Russian, people would come to me when they needed help.

In one particular case a 40 year old Palestinian who was born a refugee and had officially held this status all his life, was applying to go to America to visit his older sister who had been nationalised through marriage 20 years prior.

I had helped others fill out many visa applications to numerous countries prior to this without ever being rejected. This time however an oral interview in person was a requirement unique to the American embassy. Since this guy spoke very little English, I had to include my information in the papers so that the embassy if need be would be able to contact the person who assisted this guy who obviously couldn't have filled out his papers alone.

Out of all the papers I had filled before, I was really doubtful as to whether he'd get this visa. He had a shitty job, a four digit bank account, spoke very little English, was born in Damascus with his family mostly living in Damascus all the while western anti-Bashar rhetoric is at its peak.

So he goes to this interview that seemed to be going well up until he told her where he was born, upon which the interviewer literally shook her head, closed his file, thanked him for coming and told him that he'd get a response in the mail.

At this point we were pretty sure that he wasn't going anywhere. A week later he gets a package in the mail with a not 1-year, not 2-year, but a 5 year multiple entry visa. I was astonished. No other European country I've dealt with had been so hospitable to even Slavs let alone to an Arab with a refugee status.

He spent most of his time in New York where he said people were very kind, whereby an American he befriended told him upon departing "Come back any time. This is your country."

There are many other examples as well. George Galloway was banned from entering Canada in order to make speeches in Canadian universities after he was accused of having ties to Hamas, but was still permitted to speak his mind in America.

There are even Russian nationalist parliamentarians who were denied visas to Europe including the UK after the annexation of Crimea but are still accepted in America.

I of course am not an expert on the actual internal American state of affairs, but from where I'm standing Americans seem pretty welcoming in general.

gRed Britain wrote:

But since you are denying this, why don't you list some countries and groups who have committed atrocities who aren't America, Europe or Israel?

Nigeria's role in the Biafran famine. The Rwandan genocide against the Tutsi. Japan's Nanking massacre. Turkey's genocide of Armenians. Lebanon's Sabra and Shatila massacres. Honestly, you're being kind of pathetic.

gRed Britain wrote:

This makes no sense and is evading my original point that people like you never criticise Russia when it does what the West does.

Once again I'll rephrase. Equating Russia's role in Syria to America's role in Iraq is as ridiculous as equating Nazi Germany's role in WWII to the Soviet Union's.


The bottom line doesn't change. The west is responsible for the most egregious and heinous crimes of the 21st century. FULL STOP. Anyone who claims otherwise is a scumbag.

Well Yeqon you do seem to have some redeeming features if your views are consistent with how you have portrayed them. Sorry but this site is so traditionally infused with M-L's whose idea of "anti-imperialism" basically involves supporting whoever America hates and blaming all the world's problems on the West, that you can understand why I assumed you were one of them.

However, there are still some things of yours I take issue with.

Quote:

Switzerland has gotten rich off the spoils of its imperialist neighbors, and that includes Nazi Germany. It lies smack right in the middle of history's European superpowers and has provided a safe haven for Europe's capitalists to hide their money. The country in and of itself is not imperialist, but has benefitted majorly from imperialism due to circumstance. Its capitalist economy works as part of a greater European capitalist framework.

People tend to quickly point at the banking industry when examining the Swiss economy, but let's not forget it also has a thriving manufacturing industry, agricultural exports, as well as healthcare and tourism. Thailand, Taiwan, Malaysia, Ireland, Malta are all other examples of wealthy countries who don't invade other countries. So many M'Ls seem to think that wealth is derived primarily from imperialist wars. But imperialism (and imperialism is far more than just wars, as I'm sure you know) is primarily for securing markets, both for imports and exports. China and India (among others) are some of the biggest sources of cheap labour for US and European capital, but America and Europe have never gone to war with China or India in order to secure this model (and I'm talking about in the post-colonial era, obviously).

Quote:

It's not the Palestinians that America is profiting from, but from the Israelis. By appeasing the Israelis they profit back home due to the immense power and wealth Israeli-Jewish lobbies possess. Israel is also an American strategic ally in one of the most oil-rich regions on Earth.

So you agree that being "anti-imperialist" by protesting against the suffering of the poor Palestinians doesn't actually get to the root of imperialism? You realise that trying to disrupt US-Israeli relations is far more effectively anti-imperialist than trying to help the people of Gaza?

Quote:

In another scenario, when a country like Iraq refuses to give in to western capitalist demands, the west invades that country, destroys all of its public institutions, moves in its corporations and takes the oil.

The Iraq War was certainly aimed at securing better access to the Iraqi oil reserves, but it is too simplistic to say that America just 'took the oil'. Today Iraq exports oil to many other countries including India, China and Russia (certainly not US allies).

Quote:

You help your puppet allies (Saudi Arabia) gain the upper hand by controlling the major oil trade routes (pipe-lines) through the middle east by encircling your common foe and competitor, Iran. By encircling them, you make it difficult for them to export their products and steal away potential clients.

You see I think US and European relations with Saudi Arabia are much more significant in terms of imperialism than what the Israelis are doing to Gaza, don't you?

Quote:

The problem here is that you don't even seem to analyze these situations through a Marxist lens.

Oh I am most definitely analysing things through a Marxist lens, just not a Leninist one

Quote:

Once again I'll rephrase. Equating Russia's role in Syria to America's role in Iraq is as ridiculous as equating Nazi Germany's role in WWII to the Soviet Union's.

I think Russia is being just as imperialist in Syria as the US is with its client-state relations with Saudi Arabia. Assad is a Russian ally/client and Russia wants to keep it that way. If there were an uprising in Saudi and the US bombed the rebels it would be exactly the same thing and we would all see it for the imperialist action that it would be.

Quote:

The bottom line doesn't change. The west is responsible for the most egregious and heinous crimes of the 21st century. FULL STOP. Anyone who claims otherwise is a scumbag.

It certainly did some horrible things but, various rebel groups in Africa and the Middle East certainly give it a run for its money (as well as drug cartels in Latin America). The West also, rather paradoxically, tends to provide a lot of aid and relief to many poor countries as well. I don't blame imperialism for this though. After all, a healthy worker is a productive worker

gRed Britain wrote:

People tend to quickly point at the banking industry when examining the Swiss economy, but let's not forget it also has a thriving manufacturing industry, agricultural exports, as well as healthcare and tourism. Thailand, Taiwan, Malaysia, Ireland, Malta are all other examples of wealthy countries who don't invade other countries. So many M'Ls seem to think that wealth is derived primarily from imperialist wars. But imperialism (and imperialism is far more than just wars, as I'm sure you know) is primarily for securing markets, both for imports and exports.

You're right of course. War these days is probably not even preferred as the primary strategy for acquiring immense wealth, seeing as to how much war costs. There are many reasons why certain countries are richer than others. I've read about this extensively; about how certain historical circumstances such as the access to waterways (the cheapest form of transportation), the availability of natural resources, technological know-how and climate all play a role in the prosperity of a country. Wealth is also attained through the capitalist exploitation of the working class by the bourgeoisie, be that at home or abroad, as Marx has stated profoundly in his works.

gRed Britain wrote:

China and India (among others) are some of the biggest sources of cheap labour for US and European capital, but America and Europe have never gone to war with China or India in order to secure this model (and I'm talking about in the post-colonial era, obviously).

Once again I agree. Western fat cats don't go to war if they don't need to.

The bourgeoisie of the west not only exploit their working classes but the working classes of other countries. India and China are overpopulated so much so that selling their most abundant resource, manpower, makes more sense than trying to self-sufficiently cater to the needs of their people.

It is impossible for a wealthy capitalist country to sustain itself without expanding its markets outwards, be that through persuasion, bribery, intimidation, or war, all of which (like you said) constitute a form of imperialism since it's predicated on the exploitation of the peoples of other countries.

But let's keep things in perspective. Nobody is accusing the west of things they didn't do, only of things they have. Had they not invaded the countries that they have and not usurped the democratic processes of many third world countries, the Marxist-Leninists here and elsewhere would have been singing a slightly different tune.

gRed Britain wrote:

So you agree that being "anti-imperialist" by protesting against the suffering of the poor Palestinians doesn't actually get to the root of imperialism?

Well, I see standing in solidarity with oppressed peoples the world over not so much as being anti-imperialist so much so as I see it as just being a decent human being.

gRed Britain wrote:

You realise that trying to disrupt US-Israeli relations is far more effectively anti-imperialist than trying to help the people of Gaza?

One does what one can.

gRed Britain wrote:

The Iraq War was certainly aimed at securing better access to the Iraqi oil reserves, but it is too simplistic to say that America just 'took the oil'.

I'll concede that it was overly simplistic, still not completely void of truth though.

gRed Britain wrote:

You see I think US and European relations with Saudi Arabia are much more significant in terms of imperialism than what the Israelis are doing to Gaza, don't you?

In my eyes both are just as bad. Saudi Arabia exports its hideous ideologies all it can while being protected by western powers; and Israel keeps expanding its territories unlawfully into Palestinian land in direct violation of international and UN regulations.

gRed Britain wrote:

I think Russia is being just as imperialist in Syria as the US is with its client-state relations with Saudi Arabia. Assad is a Russian ally/client and Russia wants to keep it that way. If there were an uprising in Saudi and the US bombed the rebels it would be exactly the same thing and we would all see it for the imperialist action that it would be.

Perhaps Russia supports Syria opportunistically and in defence of its national self-interests, mainly because of the naval base they have there since access to the waterways is of vital importance to any country seeking prosperity, but to call it imperialism might be a stretch. They don't have corporations in Syria that exploit the working class there. On the other hand, the west's alliance with a country that still chops people's heads off for witchcraft is an abomination. Sorry gRed, but I'd choose the Ba'ath over the Saudis and their allies in Syria any day of the week.

Quote:

You're right of course. War these days is probably not even preferred as the primary strategy for acquiring immense wealth, seeing as to how much war costs. There are many reasons why certain countries are richer than others. I've read about this extensively; about how certain historical circumstances such as the access to waterways (the cheapest form of transportation), the availability of natural resources, technological know-how and climate all play a role in the prosperity of a country. Wealth is also attained through the capitalist exploitation of the working class by the bourgeoisie, be that at home or abroad, as Marx has stated profoundly in his works.

This is all true. The problem with Lenin's theory of imperialism though, is that it places so much emphasis on supposed wealth extracted from abroad (so-called "super-profits") that many Marxists neglectfully and simplistically come to think that the source of all Western wealth is third world labour. Yet in today's world we see capital from third world countries such as India freely operating in the West. So Western companies exploit Indian labour for profits, but Indian companies do the same with Western labour. If "Western imperialism" were truly built around cartels and monopolies as Lenin described then surely it would never have allowed so-called third world capital to be able to compete with it, let alone in their own domestic markets.

Quote:

Once again I agree. Western fat cats don't go to war if they don't need to.

The bourgeoisie of the west not only exploit their working classes but the working classes of other countries. India and China are overpopulated so much so that selling their most abundant resource, manpower, makes more sense than trying to self-sufficiently cater to the needs of their people.

It is impossible for a wealthy capitalist country to sustain itself without expanding its markets outwards, be that through persuasion, bribery, intimidation, or war, all of which (like you said) constitute a form of imperialism since it's predicated on the exploitation of the peoples of other countries.

Well it needs the world market to be expanding. But since pretty much all countries in the world are part of the world market in some form or another (the West obviously wants better access to the few remaining markets who are resistant to overtly exploitative practices), it exerts pressure on them to open up and reform. We saw this to an extent with Iran after the nuclear deal and with Myanmar after democratic reforms.

But since the world market is ultimately people and not territory, let's not forget that the world market keeps expanding simply through population growth. So the capitalist countries can keep relying on an expanding world market even though they don't have to go to war or use soft power to gain better access to foreign markets.

Quote:

Well, I see standing in solidarity with oppressed peoples the world over not so much as being anti-imperialist so much so as I see it as just being a decent human being.

One does what one can.

The trouble with this is that it doesn't actually result in anything. It's more about assuaging any guilty conscience on your part than actually undermining imperialism. This is the problem I have with Marxists who are so keen to tout their anti-imperialist credentials. They have no plan to undermine imperialism beyond simply saying "we oppose imperialism!", "we are anti-war!", "free Palestine!", etc, etc. Chanting slogans on marches does nothing to undermine imperialism. In fact I don't think there really is much that workers, certainly in the imperialist countries, can do.

Quote:

In my eyes both are just as bad. Saudi Arabia exports its hideous ideologies all it can while being protected by western powers; and Israel keeps expanding its territories unlawfully into Palestinian land in direct violation of international and UN regulations.

The trouble is that the key to global imperialism does not lie in a few Israeli settlements in the West Bank. The Israeli's could leave the entire West Bank and a Palestinian state could be set up in the 1967 borders and it would not harm imperialism one bit. All you would end up with is another bourgeois state in existence and the rich capitalist countries would not see their wealth diminish at all.

Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, wields a huge amount of influence in a resource-rich region which powers much of global industry and trade. That's why America and Europe go to such great lengths to ensure they retain good relations and influence over the kingdom.

Quote:

Perhaps Russia supports Syria opportunistically and in defence of its national self-interests, mainly because of the naval base they have there since access to the waterways is of vital importance to any country seeking prosperity, but to call it imperialism might be a stretch. They don't have corporations in Syria that exploit the working class there.

No, Russia has extensive economic interests in Syria in both the energy sector and the arms trade. They also want it for the naval bases. It's no different to US and British interests in Bahrain.

Quote:

On the other hand, the west's alliance with a country that still chops people's heads off for witchcraft is an abomination. Sorry gRed, but I'd choose the Ba'ath over the Saudis and their allies in Syria any day of the week.

Yes I think Assad is slightly better than the hand choppers, but I think a bourgeois democracy would be better in both countries.

Dagoth Ur wrote:

The Immortal Science of Marxism-Leninism is sufficient.

But some points:
1. We're not really trapped in theory. Praxis is going on all over the world. The ICM is growing everywhere faster than it has in decades.
2. Marxists have always valued good praxis over theoretical discourse. That is a big part of our existing ethos.
3. This "addiction to war" has already been exposed for almost 100 years as Imperialism, aka the highest stage of capitalism. Through this system the advanced economies loot the global south to boost their own economies. Without this destabilization and warfare advanced capitalism could not persist.
4. Oppressed nationalism is an important part of the anti-capitalist struggle.
5. We all profit from imperialism in imperialist nations. Hence its continued support.
6. The only way to get public ownership of the MoP is to directly seize them. We cannot vote ourselves into control of these things.

Thank you for your articulate helpful encouraging response. I'm sorry it has taken me so long to find it. I was under the impression that this forum is dormant. Now, I'm delighted to find otherwise.

I see the term "imperialism" as shorthand or jargon. When we speak in jargon, we lose the people we're trying to reach and open ourselves up to stereotyping. We need to spell things out and speak with passion!

Nationalism, as I understand it, is a prerequisite to Lenin's internationalism -- to have cooperation between nations, we have to have nations.

Fascism is a global spiritual and political disease. We cannot allow the struggle against this disease to be seen as a bipolar conflict between rival nations.

gRed Britain wrote:

• Has it actually though? I keep seeing people throw these uncited figures out but don't know where they are supposed to have come from. Who were all these millions?
• I disagree. The West, contrary to popular belief does not wage that much war. Not compared with how common wars were in previous centuries. The West is not getting bogged down in endless wars; it engages in a few air strikes here and there.
• The West isn't going to blow up the planet. Why would it do that? How does a few air strikes in the Middle East lead to blowing up the planet? And how on earth does 'The West' constitute a class?
• Lol, no it isn't.
• You just said we should confront the West as a class. Now you are saying confront it as a nation (both wrong IMO). Anti-war is great but I don't see how it brings about communism.
• This is what happens in capitalism in general, war or not.
• Just being anti-war doesn't make you a Marxist. Capitalists are perfectly capable of making profit without resorting to war. Even without war the arms industry can make huge profits because countries need to maintain readiness for war.

All of your comments miss the point. I'm not here to debate moral superiority with you: I'm here because I want to survive and I want the human race to survive. You may be the "Exceptional", "Superior", "Chosen", "Master Race", but what does that buy you if we're all dead?

You cannot possibly pretend that World War I was started by "Inferior Third World People". The same applies to World War II. These catastrophies were two of the Glorious Achievements of the Sublimely Superior rulers of the West.

I can hear people in 1914 saying "Our rulers are not going to blow up the continent. Why would they do that?" And yet they did! They did it because they are not rational. Their cult of war is a death cult. They are ultimately suicidal. They are the geopolitical equivalent of Jim Jones. They think that they are Smarter Than God, but they're not. They are done in by their own blind arrogance.

Today, our rulers are once again seeking world domination, and they are risking everything to achieve it. They are making the same stupid mistakes they made in 1914 and 1939. You seem to have no problem with that. I do. That's because I value life on this planet and I do not want to see everything go up in radioactive flames.

Quote:

ll of your comments miss the point. I'm not here to debate moral superiority with you: I'm here because I want to survive and I want the human race to survive.

It's going to survive. It's doing better than it ever has. The global population is the highest it has ever been and is set to grow even more. Nuclear Armageddon is not about to happen, contrary to what sensationalists would have you believe.

Quote:

You may be the "Exceptional", "Superior", "Chosen", "Master Race", but what does that buy you if we're all dead?

You cannot possibly pretend that World War I was started by "Inferior Third World People". The same applies to World War II. These catastrophies were two of the Glorious Achievements of the Sublimely Superior rulers of the West.

Wtf?

Why are you implying I used Nazi-esque language when I have never used anything like that in my entire time on this site? I never said or implied any of this.

Quote:

I can hear people in 1914 saying "Our rulers are not going to blow up the continent. Why would they do that?" And yet they did!

No they didn't; nothing got blown up! WWI resulted in the death of 1.61-1.92% of the world's population. Even WWII only resulted in the death of 3-3.7% of the world population. And wars on this scale do not appear to be on the horizon any time soon. In fact wars between nation states themselves appear to be declining.

Quote:

Their cult of war is a death cult. They are ultimately suicidal.

Then why haven't they killed themselves? Why is humanity thriving?

Oh right, you are an overtly religious person with an overt (and unfounded) fear of war. Lol if you had been posting this in 1919 or 1946 I would understand, but today?

gRed Britain wrote:

1. It's going to survive. It's doing better than it ever has. The global population is the highest it has ever been and is set to grow even more. Nuclear Armageddon is not about to happen, contrary to what sensationalists would have you believe.
2. Wtf? Why are you implying I used Nazi-esque language when I have never used anything like that in my entire time on this site? I never said or implied any of this.
3. No they didn't; nothing got blown up! WWI resulted in the death of 1.61-1.92% of the world's population. Even WWII only resulted in the death of 3-3.7% of the world population. And wars on this scale do not appear to be on the horizon any time soon. In fact wars between nation states themselves appear to be declining.
4. Then why haven't they killed themselves? Why is humanity thriving? Oh right, you are an overtly religious person with an overt (and unfounded) fear of war. Lol if you had been posting this in 1919 or 1946 I would understand, but today?

Thank you for your interesting reply. Let me address your points, one by one.

1. Right -- and the Titanic is an Unsinkable Ship, "despite what sensationalists would have you believe". So full-steam ahead? What is the relevance of the size of the global population? -- radioactive fallout and nuclear winter will kill us all, whatever the size. The hyper-aggressive stance of the West -- expanding NATO to Russia's border, smashing Ukraine, smashing Syria, provoking North Korea -- makes this global catastrophe more likely, because it puts more pressure on an unstable system. As we go further out on the limb, the likelihood that the limb will break increases.
2. Sorry: My sarcasm was directed at the arrogance of the West in general, not specifically at you. I'm not familiar with your history at this site, and perhaps I misjudged you. My rhetoric is driven by a need to cut through the "Endless Debate" over moral superiority and get to the stage where we actually do something to improve the situation.
3. Your argument here -- that killing off 3 to 3.7 percent of the world's population is not something to get excited about -- reminds me of the notorious Madeleine Albright statement about Iraq and 500,000 dead children. I do not understand your thinking here! For the victims of war, the percentage is irrelevant: Dead is dead.
4. Our rulers believe in the efficacy of war and invest a trillion dollars a year in death and destruction. They are not trying to kill themselves, but they are certainly trying to kill others -- everyone who stands in the way of their quest for world domination. What these war-loving parasites don't realize is that they will end up killing themselves as well. That is one of the ways that their cult of war is suicidal. Their infatuation with war leaves us financially, politically and morally bankrupt and gives the state a pretext for demolishing what is left of our freedom.

Quote:

Right -- and the Titanic is an Unsinkable Ship, "despite what sensationalists would have you believe". So full-steam ahead? What is the relevance of the size of the global population? -- radioactive fallout and nuclear winter will kill us all, whatever the size. The hyper-aggressive stance of the West -- expanding NATO to Russia's border, smashing Ukraine, smashing Syria, provoking North Korea -- makes this global catastrophe more likely, because it puts more pressure on an unstable system. As we go further out on the limb, the likelihood that the limb will break increases.

We could sit here all day and speculate about all the things in the world that could happen, but if we examine the actual likelihood of nuclear holocaust, the chances right now are actually pretty slim. This is because all participants know that there will be no winners. It will be mutually assured destruction. If North Korea ever nukes anyone they know it will be the end of North Korea because it will give America and South Korea carte blanche to do whatever they like with North Korea. Russia is not going to nuke anyone because of Ukraine, NATO or Syria (why would it?)

Quote:

My rhetoric is driven by a need to cut through the "Endless Debate" over moral superiority and get to the stage where we actually do something to improve the situation.

Nuclear disarmament is all fine and dandy but I don't see how it is relevant to communism or Marxism. Bourgeois countries which have given up nuclear weapons are still bourgeois countries.

Quote:

Your argument here -- that killing off 3 to 3.7 percent of the world's population is not something to get excited about -- reminds me of the notorious Madeleine Albright statement about Iraq and 500,000 dead children. I do not understand your thinking here! For the victims of war, the percentage is irrelevant: Dead is dead.

My point wasn't to be callous but to show that actually the two most deadly wars in human history weren't actually that deadly. Certainly not in the apocalyptic sense that you seem to see them. Of course they were awful but they were hardly heralding the end of humanity.

Quote:

Our rulers believe in the efficacy of war and invest a trillion dollars a year in death and destruction. They are not trying to kill themselves, but they are certainly trying to kill others -- everyone who stands in the way of their quest for world domination.

Then why aren't there a lot more wars? There is a huge difference between investing in arms and weapons and actually going to war. China is spending more and more on its defense sector but the last time it went to war was in 1979 (a brief invasion of Vietnam). Just because the arms industry receives a lot of investment doesn't mean war is on the rise. And 'killing everyone who stands in their way of world domination'? You sound like a Bond villain.

Quote:

What these war-loving parasites don't realize is that they will end up killing themselves as well. That is one of the ways that their cult of war is suicidal. Their infatuation with war leaves us financially, politically and morally bankrupt and gives the state a pretext for demolishing what is left of our freedom.

Are you sure Infowars would not be more up your street?

gRed Britain wrote:

Are you sure Infowars would not be more up your street?

Being banished to the Infowars forum is the punishment you inflict on those who disagree with you or reject your complacency? Are we not allowed to disagree with you?

I don't understand how you can be so blithe, when the consequences of a global war are so cataclysmic. You want us to believe that our sociopathic machiavellian rulers "Have Everything Under Control". How do you know that? How can you be so sure?

History has proven you wrong, again and again. Did the rulers have everything under control in 1914? Didn't they understand the cost of war? Why were they not deterred? We should "Just Trust" the sociopaths who gave us World Suicide I and World Suicide II and all of the wars since?

Do I really need to be in Infowars to have such questions taken seriously?

You really see no connection between the antiwar struggle and "communism or Marxism"? Let me explain it to you then: War is more likely to be started by a society that is ruled by individuals who profit from war and need war to stay in power. War is less likely to be started by a communist society, because such a society is ruled by "we the people", and war, for us, is a catastrophe.



(Image: from Millie Weaver, "Satire: Russian Infowars Reporter Hacks Pedestrian Minds", Infowars.com, 14 Dec 2016)

Quote:

Being banished to the Infowars forum is the punishment you inflict on those who disagree with you or reject your complacency? Are we not allowed to disagree with you?

It was just a joke (sort of). All I'm saying is it sounds that Infowars would be more ideologically suited to you.

Quote:

don't understand how you can be so blithe, when the consequences of a global war are so cataclysmic.

Why are you only worried about war? Why not epidemics of horrendous new diseases like the Black Death? Why not climate change and natural disasters? Why not alien invasions?

Quote:

You want us to believe that our sociopathic machiavellian rulers "Have Everything Under Control". How do you know that? How can you be so sure?

I can't be sure, but then I can't be sure I won't get struck by lightning tomorrow or die in some other horrific accident.

Quote:

History has proven you wrong, again and again.

Yes, all those times the human race wiped itself out

Quote:

Did the rulers have everything under control in 1914? Didn't they understand the cost of war? Why were they not deterred? We should "Just Trust" the sociopaths who gave us World Suicide I and World Suicide II and all of the wars since?

WWI and II are part of the reason why I don't think other catastrophic wars will happen any time soon. Leaders realise from this experience that another world war, especially with nuclear weapons, would be too devastating, even for the winners. This is why the Cold War never went hot.

Quote:

You really see no connection between the antiwar struggle and "communism or Marxism"? Let me explain it to you then: War is more likely to be started by a society that is ruled by individuals who profit from war and need war to stay in power.

So what about all those wars that happened before capitalism? Also, your understanding of profit is wrong. Profit is surplus-value expressed in the money form and so is created through exploitation of labour in the production process. There is also surplus profit which is profit generated above this due to fluctuations in market prices. None of this is generated through war. The profits of Germany today are not generated through war, the profits in Japan today are not generated through war. The same goes for every other capitalist country on earth today which has not engaged in war for a long time. You completely misunderstand how profit and capitalism as a whole work. War is not the glue which holds it all together, otherwise Switzerland would have collapsed years ago.

Quote:

War is less likely to be started by a communist society, because such a society is ruled by "we the people", and war, for us, is a catastrophe.

I agree but just being anti-war today is not going to bring about communism.

gRed Britain wrote:

It was just a joke (sort of). All I'm saying is it sounds that Infowars would be more ideologically suited to you.

I've been wondering what has become of much of the life that once infused this forum. I think our form of communication is part of the problem.

Struggle involves communication, but it's the sort of communication that is intended to inspire. That is not what we have here. Here, we devote our efforts to tearing one another down. We don't have the courage to attack the system, so we attack one another instead. Marx invited workers of the world to unite -- but we are doing the opposite! We're getting bogged down in disagreement, when we should be seeking out common ground and building on it.

We need to choose: Do we want to live or do we want to die? If we want to live, then we need to add to the life in this forum.

Am I right? Am I wrong? Why does it have to be one or the other? Why can't I be partly right?

So build on the part of what I've said that makes sense. Add your own ideas. Don't be so quick to condemn me or disown me or write me out of the movement or exclude me. An inclusive approach is more likely to grow the movement than an exclusvie approach. Exclusive, we die; inclusive, we live. Your choice.